Neville Chamberlain Strategy: Obama Fighting WWII All Over Again By Giving Up Czechoslovakia (Georgia) And Then Poland (Ukraine)

(CNSNews.com) – Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and annexation of its Crimea region is “the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War,” NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday.

“We have seen Russia rip up the international rule book,” Rasmussen told an audience at Georgetown University in Washington DC. “Trying to redraw the map of Europe, and creating in just a few weeks the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War.”

Every nation on earth will start to scramble to acquire nuclear weapons to protect their borders and there will be NOTHING we can do to persuade them to give up those weapons. Because we have now proven that our word is no good and we will ultimately renege on whatever we promise we’re going to do.

This is a crisis that will continue to build and build long after Ukraine leaves the media’s ADD-style attention span. You know, while the mainstream liberal media is micro-fixated on that Malaysian airliner that nobody has any idea whatsoever happened to.

But please don’t think Barack Obama did anything stupid while all this was going on: he still spent his usual countless hours formulating his NCAA brackets.

I noted in my obtaining of the above facts on presidential golf that the U.S. media that criticized Bush so heavily for golfing have been strangely silent about Obama’s “love for the game.” It has been the FOREIGN media that has attacked Obama for his golfing as the classic evidence of an absentee president who fiddles around on the golf course while the world is burning.

When we compare Vladimir Putin to Barack Obama we get a bare-chested man riding a stallion compared to a weasel-thin, dumbo-eared metrosexual riding a bicycle while wearing mom jeans and a geeky helmet.

I have on numerous occasions compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain was, like Obama, a ruthless tyrant when it came to domestic policy. Because of the power of his office, he could simply dictate. And dictate he did.

But when it came to dealing with aggressive and even hostile foreign governments, the world sat in stunned horror as Chamberlain proved himself to be an empty suit. He couldn’t dictate to Hitler with an executive order. So he did nothing while Hitler grew stronger and stronger and bolder and bolder and more and more aggressive. Until it took a war to stop him.

That’s where we’re at now.

Democrats want to tell us that Putin invaded Georgia and seized their territory when Bush was president. And that is true. But please consider two things that make that meaningless: 1) George Bush TRIED to avert the Russian seizure of Georgia in April of 2008 when he proposed that Georgia AND UKRAINE be allowed into NATO. That move would have stopped Putin dead in his tracks. Don’t tell me that Bush didn’t wisely see what completely blindsided Obama coming. But weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism is weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism both here and in Europe. And liberals wouldn’t tolerate such a “provocative move.” Oh, no. The spirit of Obama is the spirit of weakness and appeasement. If we bare our throats and demonstrate to our enemies by our nakedness that we are not a threat, their reasoning goes, we will avert war and live in a Utopia of peace and harmony. You’re seeing more of the same as we speak with Obama’s giveaway of the internet to countries that are hostile to us. And 2) Putin seized Georgia with less than three months left in Bush’s presidency – and you tell me if you have any honesty whatsoever what Democrats would have done had Bush moved aggressively to respond to Putin after Obama and Democrats had spent basically eight years demonizing him as a warmonger.

What was Obama’s response to Putin over Georgia once he got into office? Did he stand up to Putin? Did he push for the rest of Georgia not yet seized and Ukraine that had not yet had its territory seized to become part of NATO like Bush had done? Nope. He was pretty good at spending time with his NCAA brackets between rounds of golf then, too.

Bush TRIED to solve the problem in Georgia and Ukraine before either happened. What did Obama do???

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Of course, the mainstream media savaged her for that. What else is their mission if not a fools’ mission???

In their third presidential debate, President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney when he said that Russia remained a threat to the United States. Here’s what Obama said in the debate:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaida’s a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

“But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now.“And the — the challenge we have — I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”

Here’s how Mitt Romney responded. Notice how Obama tries to cut Romney off before he can make his point:

MR. ROMNEY: I’ll respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. First of all, Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe, not —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Number one —

MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe. And I said in the same . . . paragraph, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin, and I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election he’ll get more backbone.

Mitt Romney didn’t have “rose-colored glasses” when it came to Russia and Putin. History records that Barack Obama had the most asinine-looking rose-colored glasses ever devised when it came to them. And Democrats have the naked dishonesty to stupidly try to argue that nobody could have seen Putin’s seizure of Ukraine coming.

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir

And what do we have now? The “worst crisis since the end of the Cold War” being played out after Obama has “more flexibility” to appease our enemy whom Obama went very much on the record to say was NOT our enemy at all.

How “flexible” are you feeling now, I wonder, Obama, you jackass?

So here’s the deal now that Obama has pulled America’s pants down and bent over for Russia and begged to have our national security and our prestige butt-raped: just like in World War II, we’re going to have to fight a world war to get our prestige that our weak, cowardly, gutless puke pissed away.

Obama’s “strategy” – if you could call his doing nothing a “strategy” – is this: where the world became outraged after Hitler’s second violation of a sovereign nation, what if instead of fighting the world had done NOTHING? What if we’d just allowed Hitler to have what he wanted and not do anything about it?

You see, THAT’S “peace” to a liberal. There is no war because we won’t fight. No matter what. And no matter what Hitler – or Putin – or any other thug does, we won’t fight. So we have “peace.”

Here’s the really funny thing about this: I’ve been reading liberals’ op-eds on this Russia-Ukraine thing, and the consistent theme is that Republicans don’t really have a solution now, either. So you can’t blame Obama for being weak because Republicans don’t want to go to war, either.

DAMN THESE PEOPLE ARE PATHOLOGICALLY DISHONEST.

Here’s the simple fact: as I already documented above, the “Republican response” would have begun going on six years ago back when we truly could have DONE something short of going to world war three. The “Republican response” would have began with Sarah Palin’s wisdom – and then after that Mitt Romney’s wisdom – that Russia and Putin were true threats. Which is something our failed Disgrace-in-Chief STILL doesn’t understand.

The “Republican response” would have been NOT to gut America’s military so that we are clearly too damn weak to do a damn thing about much of anything. That probably would have stopped Putin right there.

The “Republican response” would have been to follow through on what Bush started and LEAD by insisting that Georgia and Ukraine become protected by NATO membership. That DEFINITELY would have stopped Putin.

We never would have BEEN in this situation had there actually been a “Republican response.”

There comes a point when idiots have so destroyed something that it cannot be made right again. And don’t try “spin” reality such that Republicans who CLEARLY saw this disaster coming and SAID it was coming wouldn’t have done anything different to avert it.

Now the same media that literally mocked Sarah Palin for seeing the Russian threat and mocked Mitt Romney for “stealing a [functioning] national security policy from the 1980s is dishonestly trying to say that Republicans should have to fix the world that Obama has damn-near singlehandedly broken beyond repair.

You wonder what Hitler would have done had Neville Chamberlain said, “Do whatever you want. I won’t stop you.” Probably nothing good.

Here’s one on that: Vladimir Putin has built his new hegemony primarily upon his exporting of Russian oil and natural gas and his ability to shut the tap on any European state that would oppose him. What has Barack Obama done to counter this hegemony? Has he promised to increase American oil and natural gas exports and essentially taken Putin’s power away without firing a shot? That would counter his “oil is evil” philosophy, wouldn’t it? And so while Putin is lording it over Europe and Europe is cowed into refusing to go along with any tough sanctions against Russia as a consequence, Obama STILL won’t allow the Keystone oil pipeline which he has kept shut down for YEARS.

This isn’t even about going to war – although Obama was nothing short of a FOOL to simply take war completely off the table and signal Putin his abject weakness in advance – it’s about simple reality and Obama’s inability to understand it. OIL IS REALITY; Obama’s alternative energy is magical unicorn fairy dust. Obama’s refusal to harness reality makes him a weak fool.

That used to bother me greatly: how could it be that the mightiest nation in the history of the world isn’t even mentioned in Bible prophecy?

The answer is terrifying: the United States isn’t mentioned because it either won’t exist at all – having catastrophically imploded – or it will be so weak and so irrelevant that it won’t matter at all in the last days.

In the end, a leader will come in fulfillment of every Democrat’s and every liberal’s and every socialist’s fondest dreams. His government will so take over the world that literally no one will be able to buy or sell anything without the government’s approval. He will promise a Utopia but deliver the whole world into hell on earth.

And Barack Obama – along with the Democrat Party and everyone who supports them – is his useful idiot.

You won’t be able to stop him politically because Democrats and liberals all over the world will vote for him. You won’t be able to fight him because liberals will take away all of your guns.

The coming of Antichrist and his mark of the beast didn’t have to happen, but the God who knows the end from the beginning knew 2,000 years ago – knew in fact before the foundation of the world – that the terminal generation of Americans would be a stupid and depraved one.

8 Responses to “Neville Chamberlain Strategy: Obama Fighting WWII All Over Again By Giving Up Czechoslovakia (Georgia) And Then Poland (Ukraine)”

Lets be clear here, if a good leader is able to see the future, then Willard is a lousy leader. Why did Willard run for a second term for Governor or President for that matter if a good leader is able to see the future and know he would lose. I know I never look to Willard for any advise beyond how to screw the little guy, the worker!

As President Obama continues his distraction tour in an effort to take attention away from the ongoing Obamacare failure by focusing on “income inequality,” it’s important to remember Obama’s record on the issue. Despite the President lamenting about how unfair and “unequal” the American economic system is, under his leadership, the gap between rich and poor has expanded to a disparity not seen since the Great Depression.

The gap in employment rates between America’s highest- and lowest-income families has stretched to its widest levels since officials began tracking the data a decade ago, according to an analysis of government data conducted for The Associated Press.

Rates of unemployment for the lowest-income families — those earning less than $20,000 — have topped 21 percent, nearly matching the rate for all workers during the 1930s Great Depression.

U.S. households with income of more than $150,000 a year have an unemployment rate of 3.2 percent, a level traditionally defined as full employment. At the same time, middle-income workers are increasingly pushed into lower-wage jobs. Many of them in turn are displacing lower-skilled, low-income workers, who become unemployed or are forced to work fewer hours, the analysis shows.

“This was no ‘equal opportunity’ recession or an ‘equal opportunity’ recovery,” said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. “One part of America is in depression, while another part is in full employment.”

As Fox News’ Bret Baier points out, President Obama’s push for income equality is nothing new. Obama talked about the issue in his 2012 State of the Union address and you can bet he’ll be talking about it next week during his 2013 speech.

In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama said: “The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

But a look back shows that income inequality has grown, not shrunk, under the current president.

“All told, income inequality has tended to get worse under President Obama,” American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks said.
And, gasp, even the Huffington Post understands Obama’s failure to achieve results after making speeches about the issue of income inequality.
President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up.

There are lots of reasons to think so — and we’ll touch on several in just a minute — but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.

The bottom line? Big government policies don’t provide economic opportunities for people to get ahead and government can’t force the market into giving everyone the same level of income. American’s get ahead by moving into a higher income bracket through the free market, not through government programs or handouts. Barack Obama’s record shows he’s more interested in giving speeches and making people feel like victims of an “unfair system” than supporting policies to get government out of the way so the economy, and its workers, can thrive again.

Now get lost. You liberals are beyond amazing: even when it is OBVIOUS that the conservative rightly saw the problem and warned about it, even when your liberal mocked the conservative for his AND her wisdom, even when reality comes smashing into your faces, you are simply too demon-possessed STUPID to confront reality.

And what happens when the fist of reality smashes you in the face? Do you wake up? No, you change the subject and star a whole OTHER batch of lies, because you are of your father the devil and he was a liar from the beginning.

You are radically disconnected from the real world and that makes you as boring as it makes you morally and intellectually idiotic.

OK, so I was wrong. This ISN’T the “Neville Chamberlain strategy.” Obama’s strategy of TOTAL appeasement of evil actually makes the Neville Chamberlain strategy look pretty damn good in comparison, doesn’t it?

I can’t say I specifically remember that; it would be nice to have his quote to preserve for the record.

It is entirely fitting that Obama would say something so pathologically stupid and suicidal. Because, you see, to fight back against an enemy who attacked you is “knee jerk” and “black and white.” And Obama feels that he is better and more sophisticated than that.

He thinks he’s smarter and more noble than God; that’s why he’s such a fool.